Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Holacracy

Holacracy is a self-management framework for organizations that distributes and decision-making across dynamic roles and self-organizing teams known as circles, operating under a codified that replaces traditional top-down hierarchies with structured processes for and tactical execution. Developed by entrepreneur Brian J. Robertson, who first applied and refined the system at his software company Ternary Software starting around 2007, Holacracy emphasizes processing "tensions"—gaps between reality and purpose—through facilitated meetings to evolve roles and structures without centralized managers. Key principles include explicit role definitions with accountabilities and domains, double-linking between circles for coordination, and a rule-based that codifies distribution to foster within boundaries. Proponents argue it enables greater and responsiveness in volatile environments by decentralizing power and clarifying accountabilities, though adoption requires extensive training and cultural shifts. Holacracy has been implemented by organizations including online retailers and , digital publisher Medium, and fitness firm Precision Nutrition, with a public directory listing dozens of adopters across industries. Notable for its rigid proceduralism, the system gained attention through high-profile experiments, but implementations have often encountered significant hurdles, such as employee confusion, resistance to the lack of familiar leadership, and elevated turnover rates—exemplified by ' 2015 adoption, which prompted buyout offers to about 18% of staff amid reports of operational . Empirical assessments remain limited, with one comparative study of and firms finding reduced perceptions of illegitimate tasks under Holacracy but also lower levels of expressed appreciation, highlighting potential trade-offs in relational dynamics. Overall, while Holacracy represents an attempt to operationalize post-bureaucratic ideals through first-principles rule sets, its real-world scalability and net benefits continue to divide observers, with successes confined largely to smaller or ideologically aligned entities.

Definition and Core Principles

Fundamental Concepts

Holacracy constitutes a for organizations, designed to distribute away from centralized managerial hierarchies toward a network of self-organizing roles and teams. At its core, the system operates under a formal that encodes explicit rules for , , and evolution, enabling adaptive responses to changing conditions without reliance on individual leaders' discretion. This structure emphasizes defined , where power is vested in roles rather than persons, allowing role-fillers to exercise within bounded domains and accountabilities while prohibiting actions outside those limits. Central to Holacracy are roles, which serve as the of organizational : each possesses a specific , defined domains (assets or processes under control), and accountabilities (ongoing responsibilities). Unlike traditional job descriptions, roles are dynamic and multiple per individual, with authority to act energetically toward fulfilling their unless explicitly constrained by the or higher policies. Organizations form circles, nested, semi-autonomous units comprising multiple roles that collectively pursue a shared ; circles operate as mini-organizations with their own sub-circles, fostering distributed through representative links between levels. Evolution within the system is propelled by tensions, defined as sensed discrepancies between current reality and an organization's potential or purpose, which individuals process through structured mechanisms rather than interventions. The framework employs integrative decision-making in processes, where proposals evolve via rounds of clarification, reactions, and objection —advancing only if no valid objections (grounded in rule violations or harm to purpose) arise—thus balancing individual input with collective constraints. This contrasts with models by prioritizing rapid and rule-based objections over unanimous agreement. Holacracy's rules of mandate explicit prioritization duties for role-fillers, in role assignments, and for outcomes, reducing and . Empirical underpinnings derive from its application since formalization around 2007 by Brian Robertson, who drew from cybernetic and influences to codify these elements in response to observed failures in conventional hierarchies, such as bottlenecked decisions and stifled adaptability.

Key Structural Elements

Holacracy organizes through a network of circles and roles, forming a holarchy where each is a semi-autonomous body responsible for a domain of work, nested within a super-circle for and alignment. Circles define and evolve their internal structure via a formal process, containing multiple roles focused on expressing the circle's rather than fixed job titles assigned to individuals. One person may fill multiple roles across circles, and roles remain distinct from the people energizing them, allowing dynamic reallocation without personal . At the core of roles are three elements: purpose, domains, and accountabilities. A role's purpose articulates its fundamental reason for existence, such as "ensure the circle's projects deliver on time," guiding all activities. Domains represent areas of exclusive control, like assets, processes, or decision rights (e.g., a role controlling a or software tool), where the role-filler exercises without needing external approval unless constrained by . Accountabilities specify ongoing activities or expectations, such as "track project metrics" or "facilitate meetings," which are reactive tensions to be addressed rather than proactive tasks, enabling role evolution through integrative decision-making. Inter-circle linkage occurs via double-linking roles: the Lead Link in a super-circle assigns and removes roles in its sub-circles, monitors their performance, and defines sub-circle purposes to align with the super-circle's objectives. The Representative Link (Rep Link), elected by the sub-circle, attends the super-circle's meetings to voice its concerns and integrate its perspective, ensuring bottom-up influence without diluting sub-circle autonomy. Every circle also elects a to enforce meeting rules impartially and a Secretary to document records, with these core roles standardized across the system to maintain procedural consistency. Policies within circles or roles provide customizable constraints on , such as spending limits or process requirements, layered atop the base rules in the Holacracy Constitution to adapt the structure without altering its foundational mechanics. This element-based design, codified in the Holacracy Constitution (version 5.0 as of 2023), distributes power explicitly, contrasting traditional top-down hierarchies by rooting in defined tensions and accountabilities rather than positional titles.

Historical Development

Origins and Intellectual Influences

Brian J. Robertson originated Holacracy in the early 2000s while serving as CEO of Ternary Software, a firm he established in March 2001 in , specifically to experiment with alternative organizational structures amid challenges in collaborative work and adaptability. Early efforts from 2001 to 2003 emphasized cultural experiments drawing from management literature, including works by Jim Collins on disciplined leadership and on learning organizations. By 2003, the company integrated practices, which promoted self-organizing teams and iterative adaptation, influencing Holacracy's emphasis on dynamic role evolution over fixed hierarchies. A pivotal influence emerged in December 2004 when Robertson discovered , a decentralized approach developed by Endenburg in the 1970s at Endenburg Elektrotechniek, rooted in Quaker principles of consent-based , equivalence among participants, and double-linking for vertical feedback. During 2005 and , Ternary Software tested sociocratic elements like semi-autonomous circles and integrative decision processes, but Robertson deemed them too flexible for high-velocity environments, prompting refinements to impose stricter rules for authority distribution and tension processing. This evolution led to the system's naming as Holacracy in early , distinguishing it as a codified "operating system" for organizations. The structural backbone of Holacracy derives from the holarchy concept, articulated by in his 1967 book , which describes holons as entities that are simultaneously wholes and parts within nested systems, enabling scalable autonomy without fragmentation. principles further shaped its focus on eliminating waste through continuous evolution of roles and processes. In 2007, Robertson co-founded HolacracyOne with Tom Thomison to formalize and disseminate the framework, culminating in the release of the Holacracy version 1.0 in May 2009, which enshrined these influences into a binding governance document.

Formalization and Early Evolution

Holacracy emerged from experimental organizational practices implemented at Ternary Software, a firm founded by Brian Robertson in , in March 2001. Robertson, drawing on his background in , initially focused on self-organizing teams and adaptive processes to enhance responsiveness in custom projects for clients. By 2003, Ternary had integrated agile principles more deeply, emphasizing iterative planning and distributed decision-making to address limitations in traditional hierarchical management. In December 2004, Robertson encountered —a model emphasizing consent-based and double-linking between circles—which began adopting in January 2005 to structure its operations. This integration refined 's practices, replacing top-down directives with role-based authority and facilitated meetings, but sociocracy's constraints prompted further evolution. By early 2006, Robertson had named the maturing system "Holacracy," distinguishing it from by prioritizing dynamic rule evolution through a constitutional framework and sensory-based tension processing over predefined consent thresholds. These developments at represented Holacracy's proto-form, tested in a real-world software firm facing rapid market demands. Formalization accelerated with the establishment of HolacracyOne in early 2007 by Robertson, Tom Thomison, and Alexia Bowers, shifting focus from internal experimentation to codifying and disseminating the system. served as the primary early adopter, applying Holacracy to manage its growth as one of Philadelphia's faster-growing private companies by 2006. The pivotal milestone came in May 2009 with the release of the Holacracy Constitution version 1.0, a rule set redistributing authority to roles within circles, defining and operational processes, and enabling organizations to adopt the system via a binding agreement. This document marked Holacracy's transition from practices to a replicable operating system.

Implementation Mechanics

Adoption and Rollout Processes

Adoption of Holacracy requires formal ratification of its by an organization's existing , such as a board or CEO directive, which establishes Holacracy as the new "rulebook" governing operations and replaces prior practices. This step appoints a Lead Link for the Anchor Circle—the top-level —and signals full commitment, as partial or informal undermines the system's distributive . Organizations must first confirm they qualify as a distinct with defined , boundaries, and value exchange to apply Holacracy effectively. Preparation involves articulating a clear "why" for to guide internal narrative and progress measurement, alongside exploring introductory resources like webinars, deep-dive series, or the foundational book to build awareness. Experiential training, such as practitioner courses or sessions with certified coaches, is recommended to familiarize participants with core practices before full rollout, as self-guided attempts risk inefficiency and disruption without expert facilitation. Customization planning with a Holacracy coach determines rollout scope, such as adopting all modules of the or select articles, initial circle structures mirroring existing teams, and training cadence. Rollout proceeds by capturing an initial organizational structure in a dedicated tool like GlassFrog, which records roles, accountabilities, and metrics for transparency. The Anchor Circle and sub-circles are defined, followed by inaugural governance meetings to elect facilitators and secretaries per constitutional rules, populate operational elements (e.g., projects, checklists), and evolve the structure dynamically. Tactical meetings commence weekly to handle day-to-day execution, while governance meetings occur biweekly or monthly to refine roles and policies through integrative decision-making. Ongoing support from licensed providers is advised to navigate challenges like role clarification and meeting discipline, with the Kickstart Guide providing templates for translating legacy structures into Holacracy roles and circles. Successful rollout emphasizes starting small in receptive areas if full is phased, building , and integrating habits via checklists to embed practices. Without professional guidance, can falter due to the system's rigidity and , potentially leading to incomplete power distribution or resistance.

Meeting Protocols and

Holacracy employs two primary recurring meeting formats: tactical meetings, which address operational execution and immediate tensions within a circle, and meetings, which focus on evolving the circle's structure, roles, policies, and domains. Tactical meetings occur regularly, often weekly, to maintain alignment on metrics, projects, and accountabilities without altering elements. meetings, held less frequently such as monthly, utilize a formal integrative process to process structural proposals raised as tensions. Both formats emphasize processing "tensions"—gaps between current reality and an individual's sense of what could or should be—through structured facilitation rather than open debate, aiming to enhance responsiveness and autonomy. In tactical meetings, the guides participants through a fixed agenda to and resolve operational issues efficiently. The process begins with a round, where attendees briefly share distractions to foster presence, followed by a review of the circle's , including key metrics and updates to ensure visibility into . Participants then build an agenda by naming tensions in one or two words, owned by the individual sensing them, after which the items by asking owners to classify them as garbage (discard), metrics/projects ( status), or processable (for ). Processable tensions undergo clarification, reputation updates if needed, to identify next actions, and to remove blockers, concluding with a closing round for final reactions. This structure avoids status-report monologues, prioritizing actionable resolutions over discussion. Governance meetings adapt the tactical format but center on integrative (IDM) for proposals to create, evolve, or remove roles, policies, or sub-circles. After , checklist review, and agenda building—limited to -related —the processes each item via IDM: the proposer presents their rationale tied to a ; participants ask clarifying questions; reactors share concerns without ; objections are raised only if they foresee reasonable, foreseeable harm to the circle's or accountabilities; the proposer amends the proposal to integrate valid objections one at a time; and adoption occurs if no remaining objections qualify, bypassing or . This method integrates diverse input to refine proposals toward viability, with the facilitator enforcing rules to prevent filibustering or subjective blocks. Integrative decision-making distinguishes Holacracy by rejecting hierarchical fiat or in favor of tension-driven evolution, where resides in roles rather than individuals, and decisions activate once refined to eliminate harm. Objections must meet strict criteria—directly damaging the circle and not merely preferential—to qualify, ensuring progress while honoring sensed realities; invalid ones are clarified or dismissed. Tactical processing uses a lightweight version for operations, but full applies to , enabling circles to self-organize without top-down approvals beyond the Holacracy Constitution's rules. This protocol, codified in the Holacracy Constitution version 5.0 as of 2021, supports distributed by empowering role-fillers to sense and act on tensions dynamically.

Empirical Evidence and Case Studies

Purported Benefits and Supporting Data

Proponents of Holacracy assert that its distributed authority model fosters greater organizational by enabling role-specific without hierarchical bottlenecks, allowing for rapid adaptation to market changes and internal tensions. This structure is claimed to enhance and autonomy, as individuals assume leadership over defined roles rather than fixed job titles, promoting entrepreneurial behavior and reducing dependency on managers. Additional purported benefits include streamlined governance through regular tactical and governance meetings, which integrate feedback and evolve organizational rules dynamically, purportedly minimizing and improving accountability. Empirical support remains limited but includes a 2023 cross-sectional study of 95 Holacracy employees and 52 matched traditional organization employees in and , which found Holacracy participants reported significantly fewer illegitimate tasks (mean = 2.49, SD = 0.65) compared to traditional counterparts (mean = 2.78, SD = 0.64; t(53) = -2.04, p < 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.57), attributing this to self-organizational processes that eliminate unnecessary work. The same study reported markedly higher perceived appreciation in Holacracy settings (mean = 5.33, SD = 1.41) versus traditional ones (mean = 4.14, SD = 0.81; t(53) = 4.86, p < 0.001, d = 0.81), linked to flatter hierarchies and structured mechanisms that enhance . A 2024 meta-analysis of 15 case studies across diverse models estimated an average 30% improvement in organizational performance metrics, such as growth and , under Holacracy, with success in approximately 70% of implementations contingent on cultural alignment, leadership buy-in, and employee preparation. Case-specific data corroborates claims; for instance, Precision Nutrition achieved 25-50% annual scaling post-adoption, while David Allen Company completed a full reorganization in two weeks via peer . However, these outcomes varied, with 40% of cases showing suboptimal results due to role ambiguity and change resistance, underscoring contextual dependencies.

Notable Adoptions and Outcomes

Zappos, the online shoe retailer acquired by Amazon in 2009, adopted Holacracy in 2013 under CEO Tony Hsieh, aiming for full implementation by April 30, 2015. To facilitate the transition, Hsieh offered employees three months of severance pay at $2,000 per month if they chose to leave rather than adapt, resulting in approximately 14% of the workforce—around 260 employees—departing. Overall employee turnover reached 30% in 2015, a 10 percentage point increase over prior years, with exits concentrated in key areas like technology support. By 2019, Zappos had quietly retreated from strict Holacracy adherence, retaining elements like circles but reintroducing some hierarchical practices amid reports of confusion and reduced efficiency. As of 2025, the company no longer fully employs the model, citing persistent challenges in scaling self-management. Medium, the digital publishing platform, piloted Holacracy starting in to foster agility but abandoned it in early 2016 after encountering role ambiguity and decision-making bottlenecks. Founders Evan Williams and others attributed the failure partly to incomplete commitment, as hybrid structures persisted, leading to inefficiencies in a fast-growing . No specific turnover figures were publicly disclosed, but the reversion to conventional management highlighted Holacracy's difficulties in knowledge-intensive firms without full buy-in. Smaller organizations have reported more sustained use, such as Precision Nutrition, a firm that implemented Holacracy around 2019 and documented improved role clarity in practitioner accounts, though without independent metrics on growth or retention. Swiss software company Liip began adoption in 2016 via practitioner training, claiming enhanced in a team of under 200, but empirical outcomes remain anecdotal. A 2024 of 15 case studies across models found mixed performance impacts, with benefits in adaptability for startups but frequent issues in larger entities, underscoring Holacracy's niche applicability rather than universal success.

Criticisms and Limitations

Practical Implementation Failures

Zappos' full-scale adoption of Holacracy in 2013 exemplified practical challenges, as the system's rigid protocols led to operational confusion and elevated employee . Approximately 18% of the workforce accepted a offer in 2015 after CEO Tony Hsieh's to commit or leave, contributing to a 30% turnover rate that year—up from an average of 20% in the prior two years. Employees reported difficulties adapting to the jargon-heavy processes, such as "tensions" and "lead links," alongside protracted meetings that slowed and fostered a sense of disorientation rather than . By 2017, Zappos had quietly retreated from pure Holacracy, reintroducing managers and shifting to a "" model where teams operate as semi-autonomous profit centers, indicating the original framework's incompatibility with scaling customer-facing operations. Medium's experiment with Holacracy, initiated around , similarly collapsed under ambiguities in role delineation and authority distribution. The absence of traditional hierarchies created power vacuums and inefficiencies in , as employees grappled with undefined responsibilities amid the system's emphasis on self-organizing "circles." Deemed a by company leadership, the approach was abandoned in favor of "dynamic reteaming," a more fluid model allowing project-based team reconfiguration to restore clarity and agility. This reversion underscored Holacracy's vulnerability to interpretive gaps, where purported instead amplified coordination failures in fast-paced tech environments. Broader implementation pitfalls include an overload of formalized meetings—governance sessions for role evolution and tactical operations for issue resolution—which, while intended to resolve "tensions" integrally, often devolve into bureaucratic rituals that hinder swift execution. Partial or inconsistent adoption exacerbates these issues, as the constitution's all-or-nothing authority transfer leaves residual hierarchies clashing with distributed , breeding resistance and misalignment. Empirical patterns across cases reveal recurrent role fragmentation, where bottom-up domain definitions spawn overlaps or voids without top-down guidance, eroding and inviting protracted disputes over accountabilities. Such dynamics have prompted many organizations to hybridize or discard Holacracy, as its process intensity demands cultural homogeneity rarely sustained beyond initial enthusiasm.

Theoretical and Philosophical Objections

Critics argue that Holacracy's foundational premise of distributing authority through roles and a rigid framework inadvertently reinstates under the guise of , treating organizations as programmable systems akin to operating software rather than adaptive human entities. This mechanistic approach prioritizes processes over individuals, conflicting with principles that emphasize "individuals and interactions over processes and tools," as outlined in the Agile Manifesto. Jurgen Appelo contends that Holacracy's 40-page and mandated rituals impose top-down controls that stifle and authentic human collaboration, effectively creating a "big government" model ill-suited for dynamic, 21st-century enterprises. From a philosophical standpoint, Holacracy overlooks inherent psychological needs, such as emotional and clear , by assuming rational agents will autonomously sense and resolve "tensions" without hierarchical guidance. Management consultant Lex Sisney critiques its bottom-up structure for failing to address strategic alignment, as nested circles and lead links merely disguise persistent hierarchies rather than eliminate them, leading to coordination failures in practice. Empirical data from Gallup indicates that managers account for up to 70% of variance in , underscoring Holacracy's neglect of relational dynamics and structures essential for . Theoretically, Holacracy challenges core assumptions in organizational and legal theory, including the necessity of centralized duties and hierarchical resolutions to mitigate principal-agent problems. , such as Delaware statutes, presumes identifiable officers for (Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 141(a)), rendering Holacracy's diffused roles incompatible with doctrines like and the master-servant model. Scholars note that this devolution of power to processes risks undermining internal controls and liability attribution, as traditional frameworks rely on hierarchical oversight to enforce cooperation and deter opportunism.

Ongoing Developments and Debates

Recent Adaptations and Modifications

In February 2021, HolacracyOne released version 5.0 of the Holacracy Constitution, representing the most significant recent update to the framework's core rules and processes. This iteration introduced a modular structure divided into five distinct articles—covering definitions, , distributed authority, governance, and domain-specific processes—enabling organizations to adopt components selectively rather than the entire system wholesale. The redesign reduced the document's word count by approximately 20 percent while improving readability through shorter sentences, facilitating easier translation and implementation. Key modifications emphasized greater flexibility in operational execution. For instance, Role Leads gained authority to initiate actions, such as announcing intents to spend money or calling tactical meetings, without prior permission, provided no timely objections arise, streamlining in asynchronous environments like digital tools. Tactical meetings can now be convened by any relevant Role Lead, inviting only those with pertinent accountabilities, which adapts the process to smaller, more agile teams compared to prior versions' reliance on fixed Circle Leads. Additionally, the introduction of Relational Agreements allows circles to define interpersonal expectations tied to specific roles, addressing gaps in prior by formalizing non-hierarchical coordination without altering core authority distribution. These changes build on version 4.1 by clarifying modifiable rules through circle-specific policies, such as customizing or recovery processes, while preserving foundational elements like . The update reflects iterative refinement based on practitioner feedback, with the 's governance hosted on for community contributions and version tracking, underscoring an adaptive evolution toward hybrid or partial implementations in diverse organizational contexts. No subsequent major constitutional revisions have been announced as of , though supporting resources, including online courses for upgrading from version 4.1, continue to promote its application.

Broader Implications for Organizational Design

Holacracy's core structure of interlocking circles and dynamic role assignments reorients organizational design away from static job titles and fixed hierarchies toward modular, purpose-driven units that can evolve independently. This approach decentralizes authority by embedding decision-making rules within a , enabling rapid adaptation to changing conditions without reliance on top-level directives. Unlike conventional hierarchies that centralize power in individuals, holacracy distributes it across roles, theoretically reducing bottlenecks and enhancing responsiveness in complex environments. In practice, this model implies a shift toward self-organizing systems where processes, such as tactical and meetings, formalize tensions and updates to , fostering a form of "structured ." Organizations adopting holacracy may experience improved alignment between work and evolving needs, as roles can be redefined iteratively to match domain-specific . However, the nested circle hierarchy introduces indirect layers of —lead links and representative roles—that maintain order but can replicate vertical tensions under a of . Empirical comparisons indicate that while holacracy promotes , it demands higher individual discipline and process adherence than traditional setups, potentially amplifying coordination costs in non-agile cultures. Broader design implications extend to scalability challenges, particularly for large enterprises, where the proliferation of circles risks decision fragmentation without supplemental mechanisms for strategic coherence. Studies suggest holacracy suits knowledge-intensive or innovative firms by prioritizing work-flow optimization over personnel , yet it may falter in regulated industries requiring unified command. Hybrid integrations—blending holacratic role fluidity with hierarchical oversight—emerge as pragmatic , allowing organizations to leverage for operational agility while retaining executive alignment for . This reflects an ongoing tension in organizational : balancing adaptive against the stability of proven command structures.

References

  1. [1]
    Holacracy® – The Operating System for Self-Management
    ### Summary of Holacracy from https://www.holacracy.org/
  2. [2]
    [PDF] Holacracy Constitution
    In so doing, the Ratifiers cede their power to govern and run the. Organization into the rules and processes herein, except for any powers that the Ratifiers ...
  3. [3]
    History of Holacracy
    Brian J. Robertson created Holacracy and founded HolacracyOne, the organization that is training people and companies all over the world in this new system.
  4. [4]
    [PDF] Organization at the Leading Edge: Introducing Holacracy™
    Holacracy injects powerful mental models and concepts into the organizational culture, creating a body of culturally shared language and meaning which ...
  5. [5]
    Which Organizations use Holacracy?
    All the organizations in this list have made public that they use Holacracy or have agreed to being added to this list.
  6. [6]
    Complete Guide to Holacracy: Example of Zappos - Cleverism
    Online shoe retailer Zappos implemented holacracy in 2013​​ Nowadays, Zappos has around 1,500 employees. The online retailer adopted the holacracy governance ...
  7. [7]
    Two Large-Scale Holacracy Experiments: Zappos.com vs. Bol.com
    Aug 22, 2020 · Both Zappos.com & Bol.com are online retailers. Around 2015, each launched transformation journeys inspired by Holacracy.
  8. [8]
    Beyond the Holacracy Hype
    It was a Thursday afternoon in Las Vegas. Five employees were camped out in a team room at Zappos, the largest company so far to implement holacracy—a form ...
  9. [9]
    Holacracy, a modern form of organizational governance predictors ...
    Jan 19, 2023 · This study compares illegitimate tasks and appreciation in traditional work organisations and holacracy work organisations based in Switzerland and Germany.
  10. [10]
    [PDF] Holacracy: A New Way of Organizing?** - IMR Press
    Summarized, the results of the analysis show that Holacracy – even if no clear line can be drawn – basically builds on features as defined in post-bureaucracy, ...Missing: criticisms | Show results with:criticisms
  11. [11]
    How It Works - Holacracy.org
    the “rules of engagement” for working in an organization. It takes a leader willing to ...Missing: fundamental | Show results with:fundamental
  12. [12]
    [PDF] Holacracy-WhitePaper-v5.pdf
    Holacracy is a decentralized system that distributes authority, enabling flexibility and self-organization, and is a social technology for governing ...
  13. [13]
    Holacracy: Work for Grown-Ups
    Nov 21, 2023 · Holacracy replaces traditional management with a system where any action is allowed except what is forbidden, and it is based on a constitution.
  14. [14]
    Rules of Cooperation - Holacracy.org
    Explicit and consistent duties for anyone in the organization. · Increased transparency and accountability across the organization. · More difficult (and more ...Summary · Key Features · Duty Of Prioritization
  15. [15]
    Organizational Structure - Holacracy.org
    Holacracy's structure uses roles and circles defined around work, not people. Circles contain roles, and one person can have multiple roles. Circles have  ...
  16. [16]
    Holacracy - Reinventing Organizations Wiki
    Holacracy is a decentralized management system using a nested team structure called a 'holarchy', where authority is distributed among self-organizing teams.
  17. [17]
    Holacracy Basics: Understanding Domains
    Jul 19, 2017 · Domains are one of the three elements of a role/circle (the others are purpose and accountabilities). We use them to centralize control ...
  18. [18]
    Holacracy Basics: Understanding Accountabilities
    Jan 14, 2019 · Accountabilities are many different things. They are “the work a role does,” “ongoing activities,” “allocations of attention,” and “defined expectations.”
  19. [19]
    Constitution v4.1 - Holacracy.org
    A Circle may add Accountabilities or Domains to its Elected Roles, as well as amend or remove those additions. However, a Circle may only add to its own Rep ...
  20. [20]
    What changes come with Holacracy 5.0? - Holaspirit Help Center
    Jun 18, 2025 · There are changes to the purpose, domains, and accountabilities of the Core Roles (Facilitator, Secretary, and Circle Rep). The Circle Lead no ...
  21. [21]
    Holacracy Basics: Understanding Policies
    Jul 25, 2017 · Holacracy constitution booklet. The ... Most policies are built upon this If-Then structure, so look for ...
  22. [22]
    Holacracy Constitution v5.0 — Self-Management In 5 Blocks
    The “Ratifiers” hereby adopt this “Constitution” as the formal authority structure of the specified “Organization”. ... The Holacracy Constitution is in constant ...
  23. [23]
    Holacracy: What Is It, and How Does It Work? - Built In
    Brian Robertson was the founder and CEO of Ternary Software when he developed the idea for holacracy in 2001. He was influenced greatly by the agile methodology ...
  24. [24]
    Laws and Policies: The Differences - Sociocratic Democracy
    Jun 22, 2014 · (Quaker faith on sitting together to reach consent). The major influences on Holacracy are sociocracy, computer software design, and mysticism.
  25. [25]
    Holacracy Meaning, Origins, How It Works - Investopedia
    Jun 18, 2022 · Brian Robertson then developed the concept and dynamics of Holacracy while running a software development company named Ternary Software in the ...What Is Holacracy? · How Holacracy Works · Origin of Holacracy
  26. [26]
    A Holacracy Bootstrap Guide
    Jul 5, 2018 · Formally Adopt the Holacracy Constitution. In order to adopt Holacracy as a new power structure for your organization, you must first use the ...
  27. [27]
    Adopt Holacracy
    Define the WHY​​ Articulate why your company is adopting Holacracy. It will serve as internal narrative and for measuring progress.
  28. [28]
    Holacracy Kickstart Guide
    Learn HOW to kickstart Holacracy in your company. A roadmap for starting with self-management. Get clear on what “adopting Holacracy” really means.
  29. [29]
    Tactical Meetings - Holacracy.org
    A “Tactical meeting” process for regular operational meetings in each team. It is designed to be highly efficient by relying on the role structure.
  30. [30]
    Governance Meeting Process - Holacracy.org
    1. Check-In Round. Call out distractions, get present for the meeting. · 2. Building the Agenda · 3. Processing the Agenda: the Facilitator processes each agenda ...Missing: rollout | Show results with:rollout<|separator|>
  31. [31]
    Tactical Meeting Process - Holacracy.org
    May 9, 2015 · 1. Check-In Round. Call out distractions, get present for the meeting. · 2. Checklist Review. Checklists are used to have visibility over whether ...
  32. [32]
    [PDF] Tactical Meeting - Reference Card: Facilitator - Holacracy.org
    Participants build the agenda of tensions to process, using one or two words per item as a reminder for the agenda-item-owner. Triage Items. To process each ...
  33. [33]
    [PDF] Governance Meeting - Reference Card: Facilitator - Holacracy.org
    The Facilitator invites participants, one at a time, to share a check-in to call out distractions and get present. No discussion. © 2021 HolacracyOne, LLC.
  34. [34]
    Values Integration via the Integrative Decision-Making Process
    May 3, 2022 · IDM is a robust process that is described in detail in the Holacracy Constitution. It reliably leads to workable outputs that have been checked ...
  35. [35]
    Holacracy's Integrative Decision Making process | by Itamar Goldminz
    Oct 13, 2014 · It's a structured process for making decisions in a group that rings truer to me than both consensus and top-down decision making.
  36. [36]
    Taking Holacracy Governance to the Next Level - Loomio
    Jul 13, 2016 · In Holacracy, Integrative Decision-Making is the process in a governance meeting where an individual brings a 'proposal' to create, amend, or remove roles, ...
  37. [37]
    Holacracy and Organizational Performance A Meta-Analysis of Case ...
    Dec 15, 2024 · This meta-analysis explores the impact of Holacracy on organizational performance across various business models, examining case studies of 15 companies.
  38. [38]
    Tony Hsieh's Zappos Holacracy Management Experiment
    Nov 30, 2020 · Tony Hsieh once ran a radical organizational experiment that prompted 14% of employees to quit. Here's an inside look at how the late Zappos CEO ...A Visionary Leader · Designing Holacracy · Employees Divided
  39. [39]
    (PDF) Zappos: An Experiment in Holacracy - ResearchGate
    Eighteen percent of the staff chose to leave rather than remain under the new system characterized by no job title, no managers, and complex rules governing ...
  40. [40]
    Growing Pains at Zappos as It Undergoes Radical Change - SHRM
    Jan 21, 2016 · Zappos' turnover rate for 2015 is 30 percent—10 percentage points above their typical annual attrition rate. (The Atlantic). 3 Reasons Zappos ...
  41. [41]
    Zappos has quietly backed away from holacracy - Quartz
    Holacracy is a radical departure from the way most companies are run. Its adoption can be disorienting, even for people who already buy into the philosophy ...
  42. [42]
    Zappos company culture: How core values drive employee ...
    Rating 4.7 (60) May 19, 2025 · As of 2025, Zappos no longer fully follows the Holacracy model. While it initially embraced Holacracy to encourage self-management and reduce ...<|separator|>
  43. [43]
    Medium's Experiment with Holacracy Failed. Long Live ... - Post*Shift
    Apr 2, 2016 · However, the experiment was deemed a failure. The company faced challenges due to the lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities, leading to ...
  44. [44]
    Why Is It So Hard to Change How We Manage Ourselves?
    Mar 15, 2016 · Medium failed because it didn't fully commit to holacracy, said Robertson. "I'm not surprised it was getting in the way for them." The ...
  45. [45]
    Medium's experiment with Holacracy failed. Long live the experiment!
    Mar 29, 2016 · In the end, 260 employees (roughly 18% of the company) accepted Hsieh's redundancy offer and left. The majority of media coverage failed to note ...
  46. [46]
    Case Studies - Holacracy.org
    Precision Nutrition's journey to Holacracy and the impact it had on their company. Precision Nutrition has been rocking Holacracy for seven years. Brian ...
  47. [47]
    A self organized company - A case study on the introduction of ... - Liip
    Jun 30, 2016 · A small group of employees as well as the management attended the Holacracy Practitioner training and immediately started implementing Holacracy ...
  48. [48]
    Tony Hsieh's Workplace Dream: Is Holacracy A Big Failure? - Forbes
    Jul 17, 2015 · Two years after Hsieh implemented holacracy at Zappos, people are saying that it has failed.
  49. [49]
    Why Are So Many Zappos Employees Leaving? - The Atlantic
    Jan 15, 2016 · 18 percent of the company's staff have taken buyouts in the last 10 months. That takes Zappos' turnover rate for 2015 to 30 percent.
  50. [50]
    An Inside Look at Holacracy - Organizational Physics
    Mar 9, 2014 · The key organizing element of a Holacracy structure is a circle that is made up of one or more organizational roles.
  51. [51]
    Holacracy Is Fundamentally Broken - Forbes
    Jul 14, 2016 · Holacracy is a top-down, bureaucratic, big government framework. It is completely the opposite of what agile, scalable organizations need in the 21st century.
  52. [52]
    http://www.agilemanifesto.org/
  53. [53]
    Lost Utopia: Why Did Holacracy Fail?
    ### Summary of Philosophical and Human-Factor Objections to Holacracy
  54. [54]
    https://www.gallup.com/businessjournal/182792/managers-account-variance-employee-engagement.aspx
  55. [55]
    [PDF] Holacracy and the Law - Scholarship Commons
    He notes that holacracy includes the following elements: “a constitution, which sets out the 'rules of the game' and redistributes authority[;] a new way to ...Missing: date | Show results with:date
  56. [56]
    Hello, Holacracy Constitution Version 5.0! What's New?
    Dec 15, 2021 · Right now, in Feb 2021, the newest version of the Holacracy Constitution is about to be released. During a Meetup on Feb 9th Brian shared the ...
  57. [57]
    Rules that Can Be Modified in Holacracy v5.0
    Aug 22, 2022 · Thankfully, the differences are more clear in Constitution version 5.0 because it specifies which rules can be replaced with a policy.
  58. [58]
    Upgrade to Constitution v5.0 - Holacracy.org
    Upgrading from Constitution v4.1 to v5.0 is an online course designed for organizations that have recently made the switch to version 5.0, or are exploring the ...
  59. [59]
    (PDF) Holacracy – A Radical Approach to Organizational Design
    The holacratic model theorised by Van De Kamp (2014) proposes an organisational model in which authority and decision-making are divided into (independent but ...
  60. [60]
    (PDF) Holacracy and Hierarchy Concepts: Which One is More ...
    Aug 8, 2025 · Holacracy suggests a more decentralized structure, while hierarchy stands on a centralized one. In holacracy concept, power moves from leaders ...<|separator|>
  61. [61]
    Use a Combination of Hierarchy and Holacracy Principles for ...
    Jul 15, 2024 · By blending the strengths of a hierarchy with a holacracy, we can create an organizational structure that enables clear guidance, control, and ...